Web 2.0, Work 2.0 and Life 2.0
I am writing this with Flock: it saves time. The Flock “social browser” launched version 1.0 (beta) today. It comes with built-in plugins for many Web 2.0 applications like Youtube, del.icio.us, ma.gnolia, Flickr, Twitter and Facebook. Web 2.0 is about “connecting persons” and “online participation”, but another important thing is that the technologies used by Web 2.0 applications (Ajax etc.) permit doing things faster. Sometimes the difference between being able to do something in one minute or five is the difference between doing it or not - there are always other pressing things to do.
I am on most professional social networks, for example Linkedin, Xing and Viadeo, but recently I am using Facebook also for professional contacts. Facebook is simply better as a software application and permits doing things faster. Now that Facebook is integrated in the browser I will be using it even more. Several other people I know who are mainly interested in social networks for their professional life are switching from professional networks to Facebook.
I have been thinking that an interesting side effect, at least for always-on people, will be blurring the line between personal and professional identities. Some business people will need time to get used to seeing a virtual teddy-bear, heart or birthday cake on the “professional” page of a business contact, but I find it refreshing (and a time saver). Once we used to carefully maintain different online identities and persona, but perhaps Web 2.0 means linking persons instead than partial personalities. A person is more complex than a family identity or a business identity, the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts, and who has the time to maintain different online personas anyway. Is this Work 2.0? And Life 2.0 may be forthcoming: a much more interesting life merged with virtual realities, with senses improved by augmented realities and, soon, the possibility to modify and enhance ourselves.
Another application that I am using more and more frequently is ma.gnolia - a next generation online bookmark manager. Simple, fast and integrated with the browser. It can also be integrated in Facebook (look for the ma.gnolia application) and external website. I have integrated my ma.gnolia bookmarks page in this blog.
Posted by G.P. on 10/19 at 02:41 PM
Flock
I have started using Flock - a next generation browser coupled with social bookmarking sites, blogs, Facebook etc. The first release 1.0 will be out in a few weeks. This looks like a great time saver. This is the first blog post I write from Flock.
Posted by G.P. on 10/16 at 02:27 PM
CINUM 2007 - Digital Civilizations
I am back from CINUM 2007 in Margaux, where 20 international experts (designers of the future) and 100 international decision-makers gathered and worked together based on 4 scenarios for the future of Digital Civilizations. Digital in a wide sense: we discussed several issues related to many emergent technologies and their current, possible and desirable impact on society. As last year, this was a very interesting, dense, challenging and fruitful workshop. This was the last year of the 3-years CINUM project - I look forward to seeing the final report and the plan for CINUM followup actions.
The 4 scenarios had been elaborated by the organizers before the workshop, based on current trends: the more and more pressing environmental problems, the perceived inability to cope with global issues, the acceleration of technology development, the many examples of spontaneous organization enabled by networks, the North-South divide, the (inevitable?) conflicts between management and freedom, the (inevitable?) conflicts between globalization and regionalization, etc.
I wish to thank the two main organizers Marcel Desvergne and Daniel Kaplan (in the picture above). I also wish to thank Hervé le Guyader, Jean-François Laplume and Thierry Ulmet, and apologize to Hervé and Thierry for often confusing their names.
Will we manage to find solutions before 2030? If no, we have 1 - Collapse: current trends continue and become worse. terrorism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophes, fragmentation of power, protectionism and restrictions on movement, emergence of local communities. If yes, we may have 2 - Imperialism: some nations (guess) manage to impose their views on others, and enforce a more sustainable development phase. This new phase of history might be characterized by rational decision making on a planetary scale, in which case we have a 3 - New enlightenment under a benevolent (?) strong governance. Alternatively, it might be shaped my market forces with 4 - 100,000 Flowers blooming in a less controlled way. The maturity of the scenario making work done by the organizers is shown by the fact that none of the scenarios is entirely “good” or “bad”. In fact, even the first scenario (Collapse) has some attractive features and some participants considered it as the least bad. My own list? I guess 4, 1, 3, 2.
Last year I gave a talk about transhumanism. This year, transhumanist excelsior Anders Sandberg gave a talk on human enhancement. Anders’ talk was relatively sober and “restrained” in the sense that he stopepd before covering the most “exotic” and potentially controversial ideas of transhumanists. Of course, the most radical ideas were there below the surface for those who wanted to discuss them.
On the basis of the 4 scenarios, the participants were divided in groups and explored the scenarios in more depth, with the objective of extracting relevant challenges and, after a vote, choosing 7 important challenges to be retained as the final output of CINUM. The challenge produced by the working group led by Hervé, in which Anders and I participated with many other persons each with a different philosophical position, was “Defining an ethics for human augmentation” (my suggestion to use the more frequently used “enhancement” in the English formulation was rejected because the group felt that “augmentation” is more clear). I was quite pleased to see that this challenge was the one most voted by the audience. This does not necessarily mean that most participants think that human augmentation is a good thing, and I am sure some of the participants who voted for this challenge think that human augmentation is a bad thing that should be prevented by an ethical framework. But it does mean that more and more people are persuaded that human augmentation, or enhancement, is one of the big issues of our time. The importance of the issue is expressed by Daniel in the videoclip below.
The other 6 challenges are focused on environmental issues (giving everyone the means to measure her or his environmental impact, developing a global “catastrophe plan"), improving the interaction between remote people by developing means to reperesent a wider range of sensorial inputs electronically, and “wikizing” education and politics (linking institutions and networks in a complex world, raising the global level of knowledge, giving space to dissent - I liked this one, especially in its first formulation as “encouraging disorder and messiness”, and voted for it).
Some points that I consider important: of course environmental issues played an important role in the discussion. These issues are terribly important and everyone should, in my opinion, do her or his best to understand, measure and minimize her or his environmental impact. At the same time, there are also other important issues. This is why I resist proposals to enforce “environmental correctness” by near-dictatorial means like it is sadly the case today for political correctness. I think low environmental impact is a very useful measure of how a person contributes to a better world, but it cannot and should not be the only measure. In other words, an ecologically correct serial killer may be ecologically correct, but is still a serial killer. In general, I do not like the forced separation between natural and artificial, often used in the sense that natural is good and artificial is bad. We are a part of nature as much as any endangered species and, unPC as it may be, we are _more_ important than other parts of nature. At least from our point of view, which is the only one that matters. On another issue, I was very pleased to see a certain dissatisfaction with the established concentration of power in the hands of old nation states, which are demonstrating their inability to deal with pressing problems on a global geopolitical scale, and a certain feeling that smaller communities based on territory (regions) or ideology (distributed communities) may be able to do better.
Posted by G.P. on 10/08 at 05:15 AM
Google Earth and Second Life
There are again rumors on Google’s plans in the metaverse. According to the last rumors Google Earth might become a metaverse where users can fly and walk with their avatars and meet other people as if Google Earth were Second Life. This Google metaverse might be integrated with a social network, perhaps an evolution of Orkut with new components developed by the project Socialstream - a powerful aggregator of all information posted to Orkut, Facebook, Myspace etc. and “the mother of all social networking platforms”. Now this begins to look very interesting - the huge popularity and the wide range of practical applications of Google Earth may enable a new phase of fast growth of the metaverse industry.
Taking advantage of the very accurate scale and proportions of Assisi in Second Life, I have made this video composition that simulates a user flying in Google Earth and entering the virtual Assisi in Second Life. This is, of course, a fake, but it suggests the idea that someday we may be able to seamlessly enter Second Life sims from Google Earth, in other words using SL as high level of detail of GE for selected locations. Of course, this does not make sense for Second Life sims that are not meant as reconstructions of real places. Google Earth is a mirror world instead of a fantasy world, and must remain true to the georeferenced reality of our planet. So, even if Google builds a massively multiuser virtual world on Google Earth, and even if it is technically much better than SL (with Google’s track record and resources this is certainly a possibility), there will still be a need for Second Life as a fantasy world, especially for those who prefer to keep their real and virtual identities separate.
But many users see the metaverse as a productivity and business tools, and some high quality reconstructions of real places exist in Second Life. Assisi, in the image above, is certainly one of them. We can imagine a Google Earth mashup with a quality-controlled directory of the best reconstructions of real places in Second Life. On a descriptive level it can be done with the existing tools that permit annotating Google Earth and Google Maps with pictures, text, twitters etc. Of course the really interesting thing would be actually entering a SL sim from GE. This can be done easily by launching Second Life from a SLURL embedded in a GE annotation - I think probably somebody is building a thematic directory of, for example, accurate reconstructions of historic or architectural landmarks in SL with pictures, text and links to SLURLs. Such thematic layers would permit SL users navigating Second Life with Google Earth or Google Maps. Of course the native SL map would still be used to navigate the fantasy part of SL.
It would be more convenient for users to enter in Second Life without having to launch a separate viewer. GE and SL are both CPU and graphics intensive applications and running both can be too much for older computers. Since the SL client’s source code is available, it would be feasible to integrate a “light Second Life client”, perhaps one with full navigation, chat and voice features but without inventory management and world editing features, in GE itself. There have been experiments on light SL clients that run in a browser, so why not in GE.
And of course there is the possibility that Google will develop a native metaverse within Google Earth. Sketchup users are already uploading 3D models of buildings to Google Earth - what is missing is a massively multiuser world of avatars. The image composition above shows my Second Life avatar flying over a virtual Madrid in Google Earth, with some of the characteristic landmarks of the city. The best publicly available description of the technical issues involved is How Google Earth [Really] Works by Avi Bar-Zeev. He is one of the founders of Keyhole, the company that launched the Keyhole viewer of high resolution satellite data, that became GE after Keyhole was bought by Google). He has also contributed to Second Life and other VR worlds, and his blog Reality Prime is one of the best references on GE, SL and online VR in general. See for example his The Word on Snow Crash and Google Earth.
There are already prototype systems where users, represented by avatars, can fly in Google Earth and meet each other. In the image above, two Unype users are meeting in a virtual Paris in Google Earth. The Unype applications permit Facebook users meeting each other in GE, and Skype users talking to each other in GE. The avatars in Unype are crude, like the 3D models curerntly available in GE, but this will change once 3D modelers and animation developers start working at them. So, Unype is a good preview of things to come. There are also multiuser videogames for the GE platform under development (see also the old website). In the meantime, I will go play with the Flight Simulator in Google Earth.
Posted by G.P. on 10/02 at 07:05 AM
Opening of Assisi in Second Life
Yesterday September 21, 2007, the island San Francesco Assisi has opened in Second Life. Assisi is one of the most striking examples of accurate recreation of our cultural, historic and artistic heritage in the Metaverse, and may redefine the quality standards for this type of project in Second Life. The architecture of the Basilica of San Francesco d’Assisi (St Francis), the mother church of the Franciscan Order and a World Heritage Site in Assisi, Italy, and the artwork that it contains, have been recreated with high fidelity. Metafuturing participated in this project led by Wedoit.
This image where my Second Life avatar Giulio Perhaps shares Assisi’s main square with real people, obtained by a transparent fusion of pictures taken in the real and virtual Assisi without any geometric processing, is a good illustration of the fidelity of the architecture. It is also a good illustration of the forthcoming blending of physical and virtual realities.
Many people attended the event until late in the night. I am sure Assisi in Second Life will become a reference point for Italians in Second Life, and for Second Life users interested in art and culture everywhere. I look forward to attending the forthcoming social, cultural and educational events in Assisi.
For more pictures, video and information (in Italian)
Apertura di Assisi in Second Life (this blog)
Video coverage of the opening event (blip.tv)
My presentation on Web3.D, culture and society - the Metaverse today and tomorrow (blip.tv)
Posted by G.P. on 09/22 at 02:54 PM
Apertura di Assisi in Second Life
Ieri 21 Settembre 2007 c’ é stata l’ apertura ufficiale di Assisi in Second Life. Metafuturing ha partecipato a questo progetto di Wedoit, che ha creato una delle piú affascinanti repliche di patrimonio storico, artistico e culturale in Second Life, destinata a ridefinire gli standard di qualitá in questo mondo virtuale. Assisi é un esempio della maturitá raggiunta nell’ area della realtá virtuale online in Second Life dove, pur tenendo conto delle limitazioni di questo particolare mondo virtuale, é ormai possibile creare intorni di alta qualitá e fedeltá all’ originale. Tale possibilitá sará certamente dimostrata ulteriormente da altre applicazioni di carattere turistico e culturale. Oltre che da molti blog e riviste online, l’ Assisi virtuale in Second Life é stata descritta da Panorama, a cui faranno certamente seguito altri media nazionali e globali.
Prima dell’ apertura di Assisi al pubblico c´é stata una presentazione e conferenza stampa nella Torino virtuale del Gruppo Gnosys, responsabile del progetto Italia Vera, la più grande iniziativa virtuale attualmente presente in Second Life, dedicata alla ricostruzione virtuale di alta qualitá e fedeltá all’ originale di varie cittá italiane, alle quali si aggiunge Assisi.
Il creatore di Assisi e direttore di Wedoit, Golan Holder in SL, ha presentato il progetto. Parole chiave: storia, arte, cultura, turismo, qualitá, partecipazione.
L’ isola “San Francesco Assisi” in Second Life é stata poi aperta alle 18, e la cerimonia di apertura si é spostata ad Assisi con molti altri ospiti che sono rimasti stupiti dal realismo e dall’ accuratezza della geometria, proporzioni e look&feel. Questa immagine, nella quale il mio avatar Giulio Perhaps comparte la piazza della Basilica di San Francesco con persone reali, che e’ stata ottenuta con una sovrapposizione trasparente (senza nessun trattamento geometrico) di una fotografia scattata nella realtá fisica e una scattata in Second Life, illustra l’ alta fedeltá della ricostruzione in SL. Dopo un discorso di Golan Holder ho dato una presentazione intitolata Web3.D, Cultura e Societá - Il Metaverso oggi e domani, in cui ho fatto una breve introduzione a Second Life, presentato una rassegna di siti di carattere turistico in Second Life, accennato ad altre piattaforme di realtá virtuale online in via di sviluppo e all’ inevitabile (e desiderabile) convergenza tecnologica, e azzardato alcune previsioni sul futuro del Metaverso e dell’ industria della realtá virtuale online. L’ immagine precedente é anche intesa come rappresentazione visuale dei concetti di mondi virtuali foto-videorealistici, realtá aumentata e interpretazione di realtá fisica e virtuale (virtualitá reale), e intelligenze artificiali in mondi virtuali, che sono a mio parere le principali e piú interessanti linee di sviluppo.
Per evitare accidenti spiacevoli (per esempio caduta della connessione) ho preferito preregistrare la presentazione in formato videoblog ed emetterla in Second Life dal nostro video streaming server. Sono disponibili online la mia presentazione, e un video coverage dell’ apertura di Assisi. Dal log del video streaming server vedo che la presentazione é stata finora vista da 128 persone - infatti, mi dicono che la gente ha continuato a venire a vedere Assisi virtuale fino a notte inoltrata.
En passant: la bionda di spalle (non la ultima, quella un pó piú avanti) é la affascinante (in tutte e due le realtá e forse altre) webmaster dell’ Associazione Italiana Transumanisti.
Non sono mancati i regali virtuali come questa maglietta. Ma il piú interessante tra gli oggetti virtuali disponibili é certamente il sistema HUD (Head Up Display) che permette una visita guidata della Basilica ricca di informazioni multimedia sui capolavori artistici in essa contenuti. Il sistema di visita guidata, che svolge lo stesso ruolo delle familiari guide audio disponibili nei musei, é un esempio di applicazione “seria” e matura della moderna tecnologia informatica alla fruizione del patrimonio culturale. Senza dubbio vedremo molte altre applicazioni dello stesso tipo in Second Life e in altri mondi virtuali.
Spero che Assisi in Second Life possa contribuire al successo del Metaverso come piattaforma di promozione turistica e diffusione culturale. Spero anche che, grazie all’ integrazione di nuovi contenuti e all’ organizzazione di eventi di alto livello culturale, l’ Assisi virtuale diventi un punto di riferimento e di incontro per gli Italiani in Second Life, e per tutti gli amanti dell’ arte e della cultura.
Posted by G.P. on 09/22 at 08:46 AM
More voices from Second Life and Life 2.0
My article on Life 2.0: augmentationists in Second Life and beyond has received many comments, some positive, some negative, and all very interesting. Besides this blog, the article has been commented on the IEET site, Gwyneth Llewelyn’s blog, the Second Life Insider, Sophrosyne Stenvaag’s blog, and Identity In The Digital Age. It has been a very interesting discussion with interesting people.
I consider voice as just one more cool technical gadget in the Second Life interface, available to those who want to use it. Not really the sort of issue that deserves a passionate debate. But of course, the debate is not about voice in Second Life - it is on freedom and social pressure, tolerance and cultural norms. Even hardcore immersionists concede that everyone should be free to live her or his (first, second...) life as (s)he wishes as long as (s)he does not harm others. But some of them think that those who use voice in Second Life, even those (like me) who would never think of criticizing those who choose not to use voice, _do_ harm them in some sense.
This is interesting. How can my own personal choices of technology options harm others? Having and using a cell phone does not damage those who do not have one or do not use it. Talking in Second Life should not harm those who, for any reason, cannot or do not wish to talk. And, once these options will be available, using technology to extend our lifespan or escaping the prison of the flesh by mind uploading will not harm those who cannot make the transition to Human 2.0 or, for whatever reason, prefer to stay Human 1.0.
I have and use a cell phone, talk in Second Life, and look forward to become Human 2.0. I will not give up any of these options because others do not like them. But I understand that it may make others uncomfortable.
However, the voice debate is over and Second Life - Life 2.0 are moving on. The really interesting thing at the interface between virtual worlds and posthumanity is that online worlds such as Second Life will soon become training grounds for artificial intelligences (BBC). See the Novamente website and Ben Goertzel’s blog: “What’s exciting about virtual parrots-that-talk — and the intelligent virtual agents space generally — is the way it poses an incremental path by which getting more and more customers for products is directly connected to making the AI underlying the products smarter and smarter (which in turn will attract more and more customers). This is exactly the kind of virtuous cycle one wants to see in an AI start-up company (in my never-very-humble and admittedly rather biased opinion!)”.
In the image above (George Dvorsky), Ben Goertzel appears with Philip Rosedale and Marvin Minsky at Transvision 2007. See his blog with a quote from Reason Online: “Finally, Rosedale mentioned the possibility of creating AI avatars that could learn from interacting with the avatars of humans in Second Life. “I find it very likely that any artificial intelligence we create will live first in a world like this,” said Rosedale. Rosedale’s last observation flowed nicely into the next talk by Novamente AI researcher Ben Goertzel. Goertzel wants to create baby AI’s that can learn and insert them into virtual worlds where human avatars can teach them...”.
Posted by G.P. on 09/14 at 05:47 AM
Singularity Fallacies: An essay by Extropia DaSilva (part 2)
Continued from part 1
Posted by G.P. on 08/26 at 04:44 PM
Singularity Fallacies: An essay by Extropia DaSilva (part 1)
Another thoughtful essay by Extropia DaSilva, on the Technological Singularity and the evolution of the Internet towards the Omninet.
“In this extended essay, I look at some of the fallacies that crop up in discussions of the Technological Singularity, and I don’t just mean the fallacies made by the people who think it is all a load of nonsense. In fact, before proceeding, it’s worth noting that, just because the arguments put forward by most critics contain inaccuracies and a general lack of understanding, that does not mean to say that their conclusion (that there will be no Singularity) is wrong. Indeed, at the end of this essay I argue that a proper understanding of what the Singularity represents does show that its physical existence is an illusion… “
Also, the ‘Omninet’: “Sci-fi visions of becoming immersed in cyberspace imagined this would ocurr via us ‘jacking in’ by plugging a cable into our brains. Cyberspace might indeed enter our brains, albeit via a network of nanoscale transponders communicating with neurons and each other on a local area wireless network. But, ultimately, if this idea of an omninet is valid, immersion will happen because the Internet spreads out into ubiquitous sensors that pervade the environment. The sheer quantity of data and diversity of knowledge that will exist in this age would overwhelm us, absolutely requiring advanced machine intelligence to help organize and make sense of it”.
Posted by G.P. on 08/26 at 01:15 PM
Life 2.0: augmentationists in Second Life and beyond
I have been reading posts in the blogosphere about the new system for integrated voice in Second Life. As I thought, comments are split in two main camps: those who think the new option is a good thing, and those who are afraid that it will change the nature of Second Life as they know it.
The two camps have been labeled respectively “Augmentationists” and “Immersionists”. Immersionists are those who want to live a parallel Second Life completely separated by their Real Life (RL), while augmentists are those who want to use Second Life as a means to enhance their RL. Many (but by no means all) immersionists are men playing women or older people playing younger people - of course they are not going to use voice because it would reveal information about their RL identity that they prefer to keep secret in SL. On the other hand most augmentationists, besides using voice, openly disclose their RL identities. For example, I have my RL websites in my SL profile.
A good definition is here: ”The first-generation SL residents were interested in Second Life as an “alternate reality”, one that is disconnected from “real life” but bears some resemblance to it. In this alternate reality you would be able to be whomever you wanted to be - and requests for revealing your real life data are considered rude… A later generation, the “augmentationists”, have a different point of view. They look at Second Life as an extension of real life - a tool, a platform, a communication medium, the 2nd generation World-Wide Web in 3D. For them, anonymity is as silly as faking your voice on a phone call; just because you’re a “phone number” you’re not a different person”.
Of course saying that all immersionists are men playing women would be reductive and wrong. On the contrary many immersionists have serious arguments against voice in Second Life. By this I mean that, though I still don’t agree with them, I think their arguments deserve serious consideration.
In the article Voice and the Crisis of RL identity in SL, the author says: ”One thing that is of extreme concern recently is that Linden Lab appears to be pushing Second Life into being more of an augmentationist realm than a immersionist one, or so it seems… People came to SL for a very specific reason… to have fun… to play… to be something they couldn’t be or to role play…. or to let something out that has always been hidden, to become something new. Where does voice leave all of this… you must remember that 99.99999999% of all of the major content creators in SL are IMMERSIONISTS…. this means that they are not into making their SL a reflection of their RL”, and denounces what (s)he sees as a trend to turn Second Life into “Real Life 2.0”.
I support that idea that everyone should be free to live her Second Life, AND her Real Life, as she wants to live it. So, though I use voice in SL routinely, I do not have anything against immersionists refusing to use it and support their freedom of choice. At the same time, of course I protect _my_ freedom of choice and resist immersionists trying to tell _me_ how I should live _my_ SL (or RL). The point is, I _am_ into making my SL a reflection of my RL - and want the freedom to use all options that permit doing so.
Unfortunately, immersionists have a very valid point when they argue that, with voice and more augmentationist options becoming available (such as the possibility to paste a realtime webcam feed onto an avatar face and body, that may well become available in one or two years), most users of Second Life will become augmantationists and this will effectively discriminate against immersionists and push them into a second class role. They will be able to join immersionist communities where voice and webcam feeds are banned, but will be effectively cut from interacting with most other users.
I understand this argument but it does not seem such a big deal to me. It seems a reasonable assumption that role players prefer to hang with other role players in SL anyway. In a few years, new users of the Metaverse will probably be unable to understand what this debate was about. They will not understand how someone can consider having _more options_ as a bad thing. Everyone can have multiple avatars, say one for role playing and one for social networking, business and learning under her or his RL identity. Those who want to use a single avatar can install voice masking software coupled to the microphone input.
To me, Life 2.0 means augmenting virtual reality with physical reality and vice versa. It means being able to have meaningful interactions with people on the other side of the planet, with an overall communication bandwidth equivalent to face to face contact. We are now taking the first steps in this direction, and this is something good.
I believe those who say NO to voice and “Real Life 2.0”, most of them first-generation residents interested in Second Life as an “alternate reality”, are simply stuck with a preconceived notion of Second Life as _only_ a role playing game for immersionists and are unable (or unwilling) to adapt to this quite radical “change of the nature of the game”. They conceive their (and others’) Second Life only within the narrow area defined by their early role playing experiences, and resist change - even if nothing is going to change for them personally if they don’t want to. But I think having more options to choose is always a good thing, and restricting the freedom of others to choose their options without harming anyone is always a bad thing.
It has been said that virtual worlds like Second Life are dynamic laboratories to shed light on social and economic behavior. In fact, the debate over voice and the intrusion of RL in SL reminds me of another debate which is beginning to take shape, over much more important scientific, social and political issues related to human enhancement. Also Transhumanists talk of augmenting real life, but in much more radical terms. We want to merge biology with technology and eliminate disease, suffering, aging and death. Yes, death. Our generation may be among the last mortal generations, and by the end of the century our children may live in the Metaverse as disembodied software beings. Let’s call this Life 3.0: escaping the prison of the flesh and moving on.
This will be a _very_ radical change of the nature of the game, and of course there will be those who will prefer to stay in the old comfortable game instead of embracing change and moving on. They will conceive their (and others’) life only within the narrow area defined by the experiences of earlier generations, and resist change - even if nothing is going to change for them personally if they don’t want to. I am sure that nobody will force them to upgrade to Life 3.0, and there will be “immersionist” communities for persons who choose to remain immersed in human biology and its limitations. However, knowing that a large part of the human species has moved on beyond biology, and there is a new game going on in which they don’t participate, is bound to have some mental impact on those who choose to stay behind, and create very significant social and political problems to solve. The coming debate on human enhancement is very important as it will permit analysing problems and devising solutions. I think these problems can and will be solved, and after a few decades people will probably be unable to understand what the debate was about.
Posted by G.P. on 08/08 at 07:15 AM
Uploading, cyborgisation, teletrasporto, rianimazione postcrio: possibilità ed identità
E’ un annetto che questo discorso va e viene sulla lista della AIT e su quella WTA, e comunque è una delle cose che mi interessava approfondire quando sono entrato in contatto con il “transumanismo organizzato”, non perché le relative tematiche pongano problemi sociali imminenti, ma piuttosto perché coinvolgono aspetti “filosofici” che si riflettono in generale sull’approccio transumanista ai problemi.
La questione sollevata in modo ricorrente è che tanto per cominciare non è dimostrato che queste cose siano possibili, e che non è dimostrato che il loro prodotto finale sia “ancora” l’oggetto (o meglio il soggetto) cui sono stati applicati.
Ora, io credo che tale questione sia risolvibile in termini puramente concettuali, e del tutto a prescindere dalle (immense) questioni tecniche connesse all’una od all’altra ipotesi.
Tanto per cominciare, “possibile” e “praticamente possibile” (o addirittura “praticamente possibile allo stato attuale della tecnica") sono due concetti intrinsecamente diversi. Escludere qualcosa dal novero delle possibilità significa individuare delle ragioni di tipo logico o fisico che prevengano la realizzazione dell’ipotesi. In mancanza di ciò, la strada resta ovviamente aperta per uno thought experiment volto a studiare l’ipotesi ed a definire i suoi requisiti di fattibilità, primo passo per (eventualmente) tentare di definire una procedura necessaria alla sua realizzazione, o i presupposti della medesima.
Secondo, non mi pare vi siano molti dubbi sotto il profilo empirico che la nostra identità “viaggia” su un cervello, o al massimo su un corpo: danneggi il primo, e la seconda cessa di manifestarsi. L’onere della prova che il nostro cervello (o il nostro sistema nervoso, o il nostro intero corpo) sfuggano al Principio dell’Equivalenza Computazionale come definito da Wolfram, principio cui non sembrano plausibili eccezioni è su chi sostiene la relativa tesi. A mio modesto avviso, perciò, e salva prova contraria, ciò che identifica uno specifico cervello umano rispetto ad una macchina di Turing generica sta nel programma che lo stesso esegue, nelle memorie che contiene, e nella potenza di calcolo di cui dispone, in particolare in termini di parallelismo massivo, ma le relative operazioni possono essere emulate sostanzialmente da qualsiasi altro dispositivo di computazione denotato dalla caratteristica dell’universalità.
L’unica seria ipotesi diversa mi pare che sia la supposizione che il cervello sia un computer quantistico. La cosa in verità mi lascia perplesso per due ordini di ragioni:
- la prima, che il livello cui funziona un cervello è di ordini di grandezza superiore a quello cui è solitamente possibile o necessario prendere in esame effetti quantistici;
- la seconda, che non vedo nelle sue prestazioni ordinarie nulla che sia apparentabile a quello che può fare la raffigurazione tipica di un computer quantistico.
Ma se anche tale ultima ipotesi fosse fondata, comunque, non farebbe una grande differenza, perché anche tutti i computer quantistici sono equivalenti tra di loro.
Resta naturalmente l’idea che il cervello umano abbia qualcosa di “speciale” che escluderebbe in nuce la sua equivalenza funzionale con sistemi di altro tipo. D’altronde, l’unica caratteristica qualificante di tale specialità che sembra poter essere indicata sta nella sua base biologica. Al riguardo, esiste però una evidente continuità morfologica, strutturale, funzionale, etc. con il cervello degli altri primati, con quello degli altri mammiferi, con gli altri vertebrati, e così via, così che tale differenza qualitativa del cervello umano dovrebbe essere logicamente estesa per cerchi concentrici ai sistemi che con esso presentano vari gradi di analogia. Senonché, la tesi che il sistema nervoso di un polipo non potrebbe mai essere emulato da un computer perché il polipo è fatto ad immagine e somiglianza di Dio appare immediatamente molto più difficile da sostenere anche nel quadro del più rigoroso anti-riduzionismo. E riuscire a trovare qualcosa di davvero speciale ed elusivo nelle ancora più modeste prestazioni cognitive di un’ameba risulta davvero improbo. Ma anche qui, ammettendo pure tutto ciò, resta quanto meno non chiaro perché mai una struttura biologica non potrebbe essere riprodotta o emulata nell’ambito di un’altra struttura biologica o pseudo-biologica funzionalmente equivalente, e creata deliberatamente per esserlo.
E qui veniamo alla questione della “coincidenza dell’identità”. Il principio di identità, in senso logico, è “A=A”. Identico ad un oggetto è solo l’oggetto stesso, nell’insieme delle sue caratteristiche, nessuna esclusa e qualsiasi sia il grado di accuratezza con cui le medesime vengono prese in esame.
Questo d’altronde *non* è il concetto di identità che applichiamo nella nostra vita quotidiana e nei nostri rapporti con il mondo. Per esempio, per la maggiorparte degli scopi pratici, pochi considerano “A1” come diverso da “A” per il mero fatto di essere collocato temporalmente o spazialmente in una posizione diversa. Variazioni nello stato quantico delle particelle da cui è composto “A1” possono ugualmente essere ignorate, specie quando A è una montagna. Ancora, non ci porta di solito a rimettere in discussione l’identità di oggetti del mondo macrofisico il fatto che abbiano una molecola in più o in meno, o una molecola in una posizione diversa.
In realtà, allargando il discorso, nessuno dubita di restare proprietario della medesima automobile non solo dopo aver fatto il pieno, ma neppure quando interi componenti della medesima vengono sostituiti. Alla fine, anzi, un oggetto eminentemente modulare come un PC può essere interamente sostituito, nel tempo, attraverso riparazioni ed upgrade hardware, tutte una ad una inidonee a rendere linguisticamente plausibile l’affermazione che si tratterebbe di un altro PC. Qual è la soglia che è allora davvero rilevante? Non sembra sia possibile raggiungere una conclusione al riguardo se non nel senso in cui:
a) tale soglia è sostanzialmente arbitraria;
b) in ogni modo, ammette inevitabilmente una zona grigia;
c) sia il livello cui la soglia viene posta, sia l’ampiezza della zona grigia, dipendono dai fini per cui l’identità dell’oggetto viene presa in considerazione.
Ora, tali fini sono nella maggiorparte dei casi di natura *funzionale*, sia che si tratti di un’identificazione di genere ("questo è un PC, un cane, un uomo etc.") sia che si tratti di un’identificazione di specie ("questo è il mio PC, il mio cane, Giulio, etc.").
Anzi, direi che sono accentuatamente funzionali proprio con riguardo alle persone, in cui l’identità specifica non viene percepita come rimessa fondamentalmente in discussione, se non in senso metaforico ("ormai sei diventata un’altra"), né dalla sostituzione della maggiorparte degli atomi che ne compongono il corpo, né dai notevoli cambiamenti morfologici e di personalità che si verificano nel corso del tempo. E ciò a cominciare innanzitutto dalla nostra stessa identità personale.
Pertanto, mentre è certo impossibile, anche concettualmente, sostituire un originale qualsiasi con una copia perfetta, sappiamo che ciò non è affatto richiesto perché sia legittimo parlare di “continuità” dell’identità dell’oggetto medesimo, ovvero di una sua “capacità di restare se stesso, e non un altro, pur mutando in gradi diversi”, secondo il significato comunemente usato della parola.
Cosa allora è necessario (e sufficiente) per dire che Tizio è rimasto se stesso? Invece di affanarci a cercare definizioni “essenzialiste”, la cui validità non potrebbe essere comunque dimostrata, possiamo von facilità dare una risposta psicologicamente ed operativamente vera per definizione. Turing come noto definiva come “intelligenza artificiale” quel dispositivo tale per cui un essere umano non sia in grado in un numero finito di interazione di decidere se ha a che fare con un altro essere umano o con un dispositivo artificiale. Noi possiamo generalizzare il concetto nel senso di definire Tizio come “l’entità in grado, in un numero finito di interazioni con un numero finito di interlocutori, di essere in media altrettanto convincente di quanto Tizio lo sia mai stato quanto al fatto di essere proprio lui”.
Ma come possiamo sapere, ribatte qualcuno, che Tizio sia “davvero” lui? Come sappiamo che dopo essere passati dal processo X saremo “davvero” ancora noi stessi, qualsiasi siano i risultati conseguiti nel test suddetto? La verità è che questa domanda non ha risposta perché è la domanda a non avere senso, almeno per chi pensa che l’unica realtà di cui si possa sensatamente parlare non è quella di noumeni kantiani per definizione inconoscibili, ma quella fenomenica.
In realtà, infatti, qualsiasi soggetto in grado di formulare il pensiero “io” non può che ritenere di essere.. se stesso, e percepire una perfetta continuità soggettiva con il suo intero passato - che diversamente non sarebbe appunto “suo” -, come definito dalla memoria cui il soggetto stesso ha accesso.
Pertanto, sotto questo profilo, nessuno sarà mai in grado di concludere di essere stato ad un certo punto… un altro, o percepire una soluzione di continuità tra la propria identità ed un’identità precedente. In altri termini, l’illusione di continuità che tutti sperimentiamo per tanto che possa risalire la nostra memoria è assolutamente indipendente dal fatto che abbiamo continuato a vivere e crescere, sostituendo e modificando i nostri materiali e struttura in modo graduale, oppure che siamo passati in un teletrasporto che ci ha incenerito e poi ci ha ricostruito atomo per atomo in orbita intorno ad Alpha Centauri quattro anni dopo. E tale impressione nulla perciò può dirci con riguardo al fatto se siamo ancora gli stessi di ieri sera, o di un secondo fa, o se il nostro “originale” è stato rapito dagli alieni, o dagli elfi, e noi siamo solo l’automa che ne ha preso il posto.
Il fatto che si tratti della “stessa persona” costituisce perciò unicamente l’oggetto di una percezione sociale ed empirica da parte degli altri, non della persona che ha subito il processo. Viceversa, l’interessato che è destinato a subire il processo non ha altro modo di formarsi un’opinione sul fatto di essere o meno destinato a “sopravvivere” ad esso che sulla base dell’esperienza relativa alle sue interazioni con altri soggetti che dal processo sono già passati, e dalla sua identificazione o meno di tali soggetti come la stessa persona “prima e dopo”, in quanto copie funzionali “buone abbastanza”.
Si tratta di una proiezione? Certo. Ma questo è esattamente lo stesso tipo di proiezione che ci induce nella vita di tutti giorni ad attribuire un’autocoscienza - che per definizione non potremo mai direttamente sperimentare - ad altri soggetti, o a considerare che io tra un anno, se vivo e cosciente, sarò ancora “io”, anche se a rigore non ho nessun modo di dirlo.
Posted by Stefano Vaj on 08/07 at 01:39 PM
Amor, Eros and Thanatos, the ultimate Posthuman Creative Statement
How big of a hubris is it to formulate all variables of the human state in something like a computer utility? Something like SimMind? And what if what you’d create were so beautiful it would make you lose all sense of meaning, unless it were expressed as a subset of your creatures?
Can all the error’s in a human being be cured, by carefully unweaving the tapestry of who that person is, and recoalescing the psyche? Can all the deficiencies years of pain and hurt and stress have left be edited out?
This sounds so… gothic.... so …emo. However I do think humans are largely defined by their suffering, which is inherent in the human state. Remove that suffering and you get something that is as innocent as it is passive. Our psyche works through a feedback system of stick and carrot, i.e. pain and pleasure. That system is brutally effective for animals ... however we have become something frightfully not animal, so unique I sometimes worry just how unique it is in the bigger picture. Humanity thinks, can set strategies, can plan, can anticipate and can see some of the consequences of its choices, so far on a pathetically limited fashion
… but something uniquely new has started.
If we would be able to depict the essence of a human mind in a really big flowchart, we would probably end up with something abstract and meaningless, in the same way machine code has very little similarity to the intricate aesthetics of a computer program.
However, if we could, could we tidy up all that neurochemistry machine code and reduce it to a higher programming code of more recognizable semiotic signifiers and still retain the essential human? Could we simplify, “macro” the neurological warble and make us see the forest?
I think we could. We could reduce the complexity of the mind and bring it into the realm of insightful yet extremely convoluted variables. We would be able to enter those variables, with explanatory FAQs which would include DNA data to get a human of whatever programmed algorithmic qualities we visualize. We might even be able to reverse large parts of the neurochemistry and DNA of one Mozart based on tinkering with the variables in such a simulation.
Call such a program SimMind, with a supremely easy graphical interface. It doesn’t just simulate a mind, but allows you to create, evolve, tweak and perfect it.
I am not saying humanity will go about it that way; it’s a bit too easy probably. But if we would, a simplified version could already be “in the stores” in 2030, probably in a version of Second Life current at that time.
That brings me to the topic of identity and me.
Using the SimMind I could look at a model of a human mind, the essential coding, the merits of that coding, and add features. Say for instance I want a sane, charming and stable human, but I wish to tinker with the basic composition, and add all the benefits of autism, without any drawbacks. Now what if I would include it all; every single human idiot-savant feature, ranging from a perfect hearing to eidetic memory to perfect arithmic talent, the whole deal, but with no single drawback. To realize that in the flesh would be probably be quite difficult, relative to a normal human, and if I’d look at my valued program, the FAQ readme’s I’d generate about the genes of such a human would suggest it would lie outside the bounds of what be generated with genetic qualities in vitro. If I’d grow such a human in a nearby DNA-vat (tm) the human would be so unique it probably would be unable to breed with garden of Eden variety homo sapiens.
But it would get worse. I could also generate humans with not just qualities maxed out, as if I maxed out a D&D character with all traits at 18, six core classes at epic levels and a pile of feats (or any other metaphor you would like to entertain), I would also be able to elect properties no just defined by quantity (more of everything) but also by unique composition.
I could work through obsession; engineer a human variant so gregarious, so stoned on his/her own psychological hang-ups, that he or she simply couldn’t be unhappy.
Now imagine creating a whole bunch of those, in accordance with your deepest desires and obsessions and fears and aspirations. Would you, when looking at them, a bunch of effectively immortal creatures, with bodies as flawless as nano-replicated diamonds, minds sharpened to perfection with just the right number of hang-ups and obsessions to make them interesting ... would you care living on?
I am fairly certain I would create a subspace in these creatures, in their minds, and house myself there, passive, observer, no longer moved to will, just as a passenger, and live through them. I would, without any doubt whatsoever, elect to dissolve in them, whatever the consequences, in a state of eternal contrition, surrendered to my sloth, experiencing the ride into eternity through their sophisticated ambitions, vices, ego’s and passions.
That is my vision of post humanity. To love my mind children so much, to love their perfection as well as their identity so much, I already at this moment, would embrace sweet oblivion within them, and let my me-ness be borne with the winds of their souls, into a future I can scarcely define or put into words.
It is the most sophisticated death wish I can formulate.
Posted by Khannea Suntzu on 08/06 at 09:08 PM
Aldo Schiavone - Storia e destino
Il libro Storia e Destino di Aldo Schiavone potrebbe rappresentare una svolta e un punto di non ritorno per cio’ che riguarda l’ accettazione, o almeno la presa di conoscenza, delle idee transumaniste da parte dell’ ambiente culturale mainstream in Italia. Come si vede dalla recensione della Stampa che segue l’ autore, un noto storico ed autorevole intellettuale che “non è uno scienziato pazzo né un guru new age”, prende decisamente posizione in favore del nostro diritto, e forse dovere, di fare pieno uso delle tecnologie in via di sviluppo per prendere in mano le redini dell’ evoluzione della nostra specie (per dirla alla Fukuyama). Con un sobrio linguaggio accademico, Schiavone esprime il suo interesse e appoggio per le idee transumaniste riferendosi a concetti come l’ inarrestabile accelerazione esponenziale delle nostre capacita’ tecnologiche, la possibilita’ dell’ immortalita’ biologica e cibernetica (mind uploading), l’ ammissibilita’ dei radicali sviluppi che saranno presto realizzabili, e il rifiuto delle interferenze clericali nella ricerca e nella sperimentazione biotecnologica e bioinformatica. Tali interferenze clericali sono riconosciute, giustamente, come un tentativo di preservare le attuali strutture di potere. Purtroppo non ho ancora letto il libro (non vivo in Italia), ma non vedo l’ ora di leggerlo.
The book Storia e Destino (History and Destiny) by Aldo Schiavone could represent a turning point of no return for the acceptance, or at least acknowledgment, of transhumanist ideas by the Italian mainstream cultural environment. The author, a well known historian and respected intellectual who “is not a mad scientist or a new-age guru”, supports our right (or even duty) to take control of the evolution of our species. This next phase of our evolution is seen, correctly, as a grand Darwinian feedback loop where evolution has produced a species whose technology is able to replace and enhance it. With a sober academic language, the author expresses interest and support for transhumanist ideas, referring to concepts like the unstoppable exponential acceleration of our technological capabilities, the possibility of biologic and cybernetic immortality (mind uploading), the acceptability of radical, soon feasible developments, and the rejection of clerical interferences in biotechnology and bioinformatics research and experimentation. Such clerical interferences are recognized, correctly, as an attempt to preserve current power structures.
La Stampa: Ora è la tecnica che fa evoluzione - La mente, non la natura, deciderà il futuro della nostra specie
Credo che la generazione cui appartengo e quella dei suoi figli saranno fra le ultime a fare i conti con l’esperienza della morte, almeno nei termini in cui la nostra specie l’ha incontrata finora”. A lanciare questa profezia non è uno scienziato pazzo né un guru new age, ma uno dei più sobri, autorevoli ed equilibrati storici contemporanei: Aldo Schiavone, che in Storia e destino , un libro “più leggero di una foglia”, reinterpreta in maniera sorprendente ciò che è stato, che è e che sarà. Non è un saggio di storia né di filosofia né di divulgazione scientifica, ma una riflessione nata “al crocevia di conoscenze e tradizioni diverse”. La sua ampiezza di sguardo non sorprende considerata non solo la personalità dell’autore, ma anche la sua posizione al vertice del Sum, l’Istituto Italiane di Scienze Umane, rete di «scuole di eccellenza» ispirata al modello delle Grandes Ecoles francesi....
E’ dunque in atto una sorta di grandioso “effetto reversivo” darwiniano, in cui la pressione evolutiva ha finito col selezionare una cultura capace di sostituirsi con la propria tecnica alla stessa selezione naturale che l’aveva prodotta. La vita “sta diventando davvero uno stato mentale”, il significato autentico del nostro presente è “la totalizzazione tecnica della natura"… Perché mai, del resto, “un pensiero in grado di vedere l’universo che nasce dovrebbe accettare di essere per sempre prigioniero di una forma corporea, biologica e anatomica, che lo vincola a inaudite costrizioni, quando potrebbe disfarsene?"… Con autentico laicismo Schiavone sollecita la Chiesa a ritrarsi, dopo che dalla fisica e dalla cosmologia, anche dalla biologia: a non interferire nella ricerca e nella sperimentazione biotecnologica e bioinformatica. La rivoluzione in atto sta cancellando l’umana “minorità”, in vista di un futuro “dove tutto quel che tecnicamente si può fare sarà ammissibile”. E’ duro, Schiavone, nell’interpretare in termini non di principio o di evangelizzazione, ma di puro potere l’intransigenza della Chiesa cattolica nel proteggere come mai in passato la generica sacralità della natura e della vita.
Vedasi anche l’ ottima recensione di Mario Domina in LA SPECIE, LA STORIA, IL DESTINO e la discussione dei lettori. Non mancano, naturalmente, i toni piu’ critici come in quest’ articolo del Giornale.
Posted by G.P. on 08/04 at 11:15 AM
Voice in Second Life
The Second Life Voice Viewer is Live! Voice is now part of the main Second Life Viewer. I have participated in Second Life voice tests since the very beginning, first with the Vivox external service (in 2006 we organized the first events with live Vivox voice chat in Second Life with the collaboration of Vivox staff), then in the closed beta, and finally in the open beta (First Look viewer with voice). Now the voice subsystem, based on Vivox technology, has been integrated in the standard Second Life client. I can testify that there has been a huge improvement since the first voice beta releases and now the voice subsystem is solid and user-friendly.
Those who do not wish to use the voice option can, of course, disable it and continue to communicate by text chat. I think I will use a mix of voice and text chat like I do on Skype.
I welcome this development and think it will help unleashing the full potential of Second Life as a communication platform. I am mainly interested in non-gaming applications of Second Life, in particular distance learning, conferences, events and collaborative workspaces, for which voice is definitely a plus. Using a recent but popular terminology, I am an augmentist rather than an immersionist - I am not interested in a parallel “Second Life”, but I am very interested in enhancing (augmenting) my “Real Life” (RL) and think being able to attend a remote meeting or event without traveling is definitely a powerful enhancement. This point of view is shared by most business and educational users of Second Life.
We have enabled voice on all metafuturing sims. Of course, this does not mean that everyone will have to use voice. On the contrary, those who prefer to use text chat will be more than welcome and I am sure most other users will adapt to their preferred communication channel.
Understandably, there are some users of Second Life who, for many reasons, prefer not to use voice. Most of them are primarily interested in Second Life as a role playing game (I am not going to expand on that because I believe the reasons why they do not want to use voice are their own business). Some of them feel that the integration of voice in Second Life will gradually lead to discrimination against them. This is, I think, true in a certain sense: role players will tend to congregate in “role playing sims” where voice is disabled, and I am sure there will be plenty of sim owners who will choose to disable voice and cater to role players. At the same time, role players will certainly miss much of the educational and business action.
I fully understand the frustration of role-players who, in a certain sense, see their magic carpet pulled from under their feet. At the same time, I have always been in favor of voice because I am persuaded that having more options to freely choose is always a good thing, and that removing options because some people prefer not to use them is not acceptable. In other words, live and let live. This principle goes, of course, much beyond Second Life. Live your life as you wish to live it, as long as you don’t do concrete harm to others, and let others free to live their life as they wish as long as they don’t do concrete harm to anyone. I am stressing the word “concrete” to explicitly exclude “moral harm”. Those who do not like the lifestyle of others for abstract “moral” reasons unrelated to any concrete and factual damage should, simply, look the other way.
Posted by G.P. on 08/03 at 06:20 AM
Common Sense Transhumanism
I wish to add two new categories to the classification of transhumanist brands on Michael Anissimov’s blog. One is Cosmic Transhumanism, outlined in a previous article. Another is Common Sense Transhumanism (see also this new article on Fight Aging).
Common Sense Transhumanism: health is better than disease, being smart is better than being stupid, being alive and healthy is better than being dead, etc..., and there is nothing wrong in trying to make things better.
I am trying to make some contributions to Common Sense Transhumanism. One is in V.R.Manoj‘s blog on Giulio’s take on Therapy and Enhancement. Another, emerged spontaneously a few days ago in a discussion on a list, is very simple (CST is often simple):
Aging is like farting, and dying is like diarrhea
Both are unchosen biological accidents waiting for a good engineer with a good screwdriver. The sooner we can live without shitting our pants, the better. This is transhumanism in a nutshell, as I see it.
Of course I could have chosen an example not related to things that most people find vulgar and disgusting, but I think this formulation has the merit of removing residual associations with certain mistaken notions of aging and death as good things, and showing in plain and simple words that they are disgusting things.
The church has invented the concept of humility as a value: you should humbly accept (and even rejoice) that you are poor and powerless, leaving them free to become even more powerful and rich. Of course, if you behave you will go to heaven. Too bad that few people believe in heaven these days. But another facet of the same mentality is that we should feel some respect, or “reverence”, for our limits. Even if you do not believe in god anymore, you are supposed to accept, respect and even worship the “wisdom of nature” that has dictated that we must age and die.
Even smart and enlightened people can fall prey of this mind virus. In a recent conversation, a person whom I respect a lot (while we often disagree on important points) referred to the “rather questionable achievement of becoming something like a mineral”. This was probably a rhetorical figure, but it may also indicate a residual notion that a person is defined by the limitations of her or his body.
This notion has been used by the church a lot. What I find very strange is that, while we all know that having a body can be very good (even as a uploaded consciousness, if I get there, I will still simulate good body things like swimming and screwing), the church has always condemned with strong words all pleasures that the body can give. While, of course, they were discretely enjoying the same pleasures themselves. I think another bit of common sense is: swimming and screwing are good things, and farting, aging, diarrhea and death are bad things. Let’s keep the good things, and throw away the bad things.
Posted by G.P. on 08/02 at 10:57 AM